Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 28, 2014 8:00pm-8:31pm PDT

8:00 pm
that some information isn't. >> sure, deputy city attorney jon givner. but before i get to your question, supervisor breed, just one clarification on the amendment. supervisor campos, i believe, had circulated written draft of the amendment. the language in the written draft doesn't exactly mirror the language that you had, supervisor campos, but it reaches the same point, so, i just wanted to clarify for the benefit of the public. the amendment essentially says that when contractors turn over information to us, if the information they are providing to us is a protected trade secret or proprietary information that's confidential under the law, the hrc or any other city agency cannot disclose that to the public. so, this ordinance can't override the sunshine ordinance. whether information -- whether a particular piece of information that's provided by a contractor is a trade secret
8:01 pm
or is proprietary is really a factual determination. so, the hrc will be looking at whatever data they have if there is a sunshine request, working with my office to determine whether any -- whether that information is protected trade secret or protected proprietary information. and if it is, hrc won't disclose it. so, this amendment, i think, could be described as clarifying that hrc will not turn over information that's protected from disclosure, but the ordinance would not override the sunshine ordinance. >> thank you. and i have some questions about the legislation. from my perspective, it's clear that this is a board of supervisors that supports equal pay as supervisor kim ha stated. i just want to make sure that whatever we choose to do it's responsible, it's substantive and it doesn't just pay lip service to the problem. ~ has
8:02 pm
i know that several years back when sexual harassment cases were coming before the courts there were a number of sexual harassment cases, a number of changes to a lot of policies in the city to now require that we go through i think a 2-1/2-hour sexual harassment training to ensure that we understand what the rules and regulations are as it relates to sexual harassment in the workplace. and i think that it is appropriate that we look at doing something that significant as it relates to equal pay in our city. a couple questions i guess i had, this is unclear to me because specifically as a former nonprofit director who ran one of the city-funded nonprofits who would be -- who would fall under the category
8:03 pm
to report, i don't understand what's expected of me or what would have been expected of me to report. so, i guess i've been -- supervisor campos explained that part of this process involves this committee or task force or advisory committee being put together. i don't see a nonprofit agency representative listed, but more importantly i guess i'm just not understanding how the systems will be put together in order to actually collect the data in a way that builds a case against someone who is violating the law. so, i'm trying to understand where that exists in the legislation. i'm also trying to understand the specifics of the resources from the various departments who will be required to actually implement what we're asking to do. so, it would be helpful to know
8:04 pm
if hrc is going to -- are we going to add another fte to hrc in order to help facilitate this process? i don't want to just pass legislation to pass legislation. i want to pass legislation that actually works for the people that we're trying to make it work for. i think that i'm unclear as someone who is being asked to support this, i'm unclear as to how this is actually going to help with the situation. and i do appreciate supervisor kim's comments especially because, you know, it's definitely something we should be doing, we should be moving in this particular direction, but i also appreciate supervisor tang's comments in that -- in being responsible about how we implement this because we may not have to reinvent the wheel. and i just don't understand from my perspective, i'm not understanding how this is going to work and how it's going to work for making sure that we're
8:05 pm
holding those entities accountable for taxpayer dollars by making sure that they are providing equal pay to their employees, and how do we go after them if we don't understand what kind of data we're collecting. so, i have a lot of questions which is why i wanted to make sure -- which is why i seconded supervisor tang's recommendation because i do think it's important that women from the commission on status of women who are involved in these sort of issues and the small business commission who made comment asking that the commission on the status of women as well as hrc have an opportunity to review and to make a recommendation because i look to them as entities that could help us understand how we can actually effectively make this legislation work because right now i think that there's holes in the legislation that may or may not allow it to be effective for the purpose
8:06 pm
intended. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i do want to thank my colleagues for their comments and i just want to make a couple of points. first, i think that it was important for us to make sure that we actually followed best practices in the rest of the country which is why the legislation the way we drafted it was to reach out to the president of the commission of status of women. that's why we emulated what president obama has done. so, you know, i am open and remain open to any specific amendments. we have asked for amendments and happy to incorporate any amendments today or going forward. the second point that i would say is that based on the experience of new mexico and other places, it was important for us to provide as much
8:07 pm
flexibility to the advisory board so that they could actually devise a data collection system that was impactful in terms of giving us the information in a way that we could actually ensure that it leads to women being paid equally. and then the second point to make sure that the concerns that businesses are taken into account, and to the extent that there are comments and thoughts about the makeup of that board, i'm very open to that and i definitely -- my intention was always that a nonprofit person be included. if we want to specify that, i'm very happy to do that. but in term of responding to supervisor breed's question about could this be impactful, i think that the reason why president obama has gone down
8:08 pm
this path of trying to provide transparency and bring sunshine into this field is because the reason why this has been an issue is because we don't really talk about it, because it is, it is sort of -- it is a forbidden subject in the work setting. and by requiring the collection of data we are basically making sure that this is no longer a hidden secret. and the second point that i would say is that it is not the first time that -- probably not the last time -- that san francisco will go down the path of actually creating a requirement for vendors that contract with the city as a way of actually impacting public policy. and the first time that we did that there was actually a great deal of success that came out of that, and that was on the
8:09 pm
issue of domestic partner benefits. the domestic partner benefits ordinance was basically very similar to this. supervisor ammiano essentially created requirement that vendors that do business with the city and county of san francisco provide the same benefits to same-sex domestic partner couples and we actually fought by the city on that. in fact, united airlines took us to court. and when we prevailed, the way in which the business community not only in san francisco but in the rest of the state and the rest of the country responded to that, led to a very real and dramatic shift in how these businesses he interacted with these employees. it actually meant that companies doing business with san francisco provide --
8:10 pm
started providing equal benefits to lgbt couples and because they had to do it in san francisco and saw the benefits of that, that actually led to other jurisdictions doing the same. so, i think that's the hope and that's the goal here. so, i briefly spoke to supervisor tang and i appreciate her comments. and one suggestion that i would have -- and by the way, you know, we believe that we want to be -- have this be as effective and as successful as possible. we do believe that we have given an opportunity to allow these players provide their feedback. we approached the status of women 30 days ago and they actually met before we voted on this in committee, but did not discuss this at their meeting. in any event, i want to give them an opportunity to provide their feedback. so, one suggestion that i had, and i think it achieves the
8:11 pm
same objective, is that instead of sending it back to committee we actually continue this to a meeting in november to give the different folks involved an opportunity to comment on this. let me say this, i say that with a heavy heart because i know that many folks want us to move on this quickly. i believe that the way this legislation is structured, it allows for the kind of interaction that we envision and, in fact, the point of the advisory committee is to address some of the questions that supervisor tang raised. if we're already collecting data, do we really need it to add any requirements? so to take those kinds of things into account. so, that would be my suggestion. and again, i thank my colleagues for their support. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you.
8:12 pm
i actually wanted to appreciate supervisor breed's comment about how there isn't a person on the advisory board with nonprofit experience. and speaking to what supervisor katy tang also brought up, i think it certainly make sense that we have a nonprofit member on this advisory board. and, so, an amendment that i would proffer is that seat 7, which was really a general seat, could be a person that works in the nonprofit sector that has a contract, i assume, with the city to be able to give advice on how this would impact nonprofits that would fall under this category. i just want to reiterate, just because our office did spend quite a bit of time putting together a policy that impacted many of our employers, the fair chance act which i coauthored with supervisor malia cohen, that was a ten-month process to put together the actual specifics of what the fair
8:13 pm
chance ordinance would look like, and this is how it actually impact our employees in not doing the background checks at first application. and because of the length of time it took to meet with all of our stakeholders and make sure that we were taking everyone's input into our ordinance, for me i guess why i would push on why we should pass this now and get the process started is that in order for a ten-month process to work out between now and september, we really need to get the equal pay advisory committee going in november. that would really give them about ten months to meet with all the stakeholders and take in all the input and feedback that we're both hearing at the board chamber from our colleagues, but also from the multiple stakeholders, commissions and departments that would like to have feedback. no one disagrees with the intent of the policy. everyone agrees in equal pay for equal work, and everyone also agrees that the entities
8:14 pm
that we contract public dollars to should report to the city and should be accountable to this and maybe they'll learn there is some unconscious bias in how they pay women and male employees. and i actually believe most of our small businesses and nonprofits through the process if they discover there is pay inequity, that they will move quickly to rectify that issue because no one wants to be responsible for something that we all believe in. so, i still think that this needs to move forward merely because i think to set up the process and time for the recommendations to be ready and for the process to take place in september that it makes sense to get the advisory board as much time as possible. ~. obviously i will defer to the author on this, but that's just my quip for why we should pass it today. but the recommendation that i would make is to change that seat 7 for a person that works in a nonprofit organization that contracts with the city.
8:15 pm
>> supervisor tang? >> thank you. i don't know if there is an opportunity to second that motion, but i fully agree with supervisor kim's suggestion and thank you for that. i also want to acknowledge that, yes, i did have an opportunity to speak with supervisor campos and really the goal is just to get a few more departments or commissions ability to provide some of those suggestions on this legislation. so, for example, the department of children youth and families, you know, were not consulted about this and i think they have a huge role in this legislation. so, i would actually like to withdraw my motion and make a motion instead to continue this item to the full board for the november 25th meeting instead, giving some time for some of those other stakeholders to participate in the process. and also if by that time, you know, issues have not been sorted out we would still have to entertain another moment to continue potentially the full board. but i want to respect
8:16 pm
supervisor campos' desire not to send it back to committee so that is my motion. >> okay, supervisor tang has withdrawn her initial motion and she has made a motion to continue this item to the 25th of november. with that, supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i support that motion. >> second by supervisor cohen. >> and i also want to just adi, too, wish this process to unfold. the last week-and-a-half i thought about the fair chance ordinance that supervisor kim and i have worked on and it was a year long intent, almost a year long process. for me what made me uncomfortable, i'm now happen that i we're going to be continuing this item, but i what uncomfortable because i felt like the intent was very narrow and that we hadn't talked to all of our community partners. and advocates on the -- that's on the front line. i support supervisor kim's motion as well to see that seat number 7 is changed to require a nonprofit representative on
8:17 pm
the side of an important voice that what left out. thank you. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, first i want to thank supervisor campos for bring this item forward. i want to thank everyone for their comments and supervisor tang for her leadership in identifying some of the issues and questions about the logistics here. i think supervisor kim and everyone else mentioned they support this legislation, and just logistics that need to be worked out. i want to thank supervisor tang and supervisor campos to find a solution today that will hopefully move this forward in short order. >> colleague, i believe at the time i think we have supervisor tang's motion to continue this item to the 25th of november and i believe i had heard a motion to amend from supervisor kim which supervisor tang had seconded as well as a set of motions to amend by supervisor campos which i believe have also been seconded. is that correct, madam clerk? >> yes, mr. president. >> okay. so, typically the motion to continue to a date certain
8:18 pm
would take precedence over the motion to amend. what i'd like to ask is can we without objection take the motions to amend first and then consider the motion to continue to a date certain? >> i'd like to propose a different alternative. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'd like to propose that we divide the file, [speaker not understood] back to committee and vote today on the existing ordinance before us so that we can actually move something forward and we can bring um the divided file to -- after it goes to committee with any language we want to clean up so that gives us the opportunity to set something in motion right away because we cannot delay equal pay for women. and we cannot -- should have follow-up legislation that could do any clean up work that needs to get done. so, split the file, vote today on one file, send one back to committee. >> okay. so, supervisor avalos is making i believe a motion that we
8:19 pm
duplicate, that we duplicate the file and we vote on one and then refer one back to committee. that's been seconded by supervisor mar. okay. so, at this time we have two files. madam clerk, do you recommend we amend one or vote on the existing one and potentially amend the other and send it back to committee if that's what we're going to do? >> i agree with that, mr. president. >> okay. so, the two files have been duplicated. one file -- why don't we take a first roll call vote unless -- is there further discussion on this? supervisor campos. >> thank you. i want to again look forward to working with my colleagues with the comments. i do support the idea, you know, i think this gives us an opportunity to make a statement, move something forward but at the same time make sure we have a process for these other bodies to look at this. thank you.
8:20 pm
>> stanchion. >> sure. i just wanted to clarify i do stand by my original, i guess amended motion to send it to the full committee on november 25th. ~ supervisor tang i think dividing the file defeats the purpose of exactly what i was trying to state earlier which is the whole process with all the various departments, thank you very much. and, so, i just wanted to say that i would like to reiterate, i know that [speaker not understood] the city attorney dividing the file takes precedence as well? >> madam clerk? >> mr. chair, it is a single supervisor's privilege to duplicate the file. >> thank you. and, so, i don't know how that would work, but i would still like to make that motion that we continue this to the full board for november 25th. >> so, madam clerk, if that motion has been made that we continue it so as we would vote on either portion of the duplicated file, i believe the motion to continue both of
8:21 pm
these items to the 25th -- would we need to vote for each item to continue to a date certain? >> yes, mr. president. the motion to continue to a date certain continues to take precedence. >> okay. if that is the case, then, unless there is any further discussion, supervisor wiener? >> just for further clarification. right now duplicated two versions of this and it is a motion to continue applicable to both or just to one version? >> i believe, supervisor avalos, one version. >> one version that i would like to amend with the amendment of the whole to send back to committee and my intent was to -- the one that stays at the full board gets voted on today. so, i won't support a continuance. >> my understanding is supervisor tang would like to continue if we have a duplicated file, continue both of these items to the 25th. is that right? okay. supervisor breed. >> so, we haven't approved the amendments. are we going to do they have simultaneously? >> we have not approved the amendments yet.
8:22 pm
at this time, supervisor avalos has duplicated the file so they're two identical fightxv. supervisor tang has made a motion that i guess -- sorry. ~ files to our clerkv, we need to take separate votes for each of these? >> yes, mr. president. >> separate votes for the amendments? >> no, we're going to -- the motion that has precedence right now is to continue each of these items to the date certain to november 25th. >> so, we're not going to take any amendments horn either item? i just want to clarify. ~ on either >> because there is a motion to continue, that takes precedence over any motion to amend. >> okay, thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. i will support the motion to continue, but i also, you know, will support the idea of bringing -- approaching an item forward as well. i think it allows us to do both, so, i don't know how it works in terms of how we take each motion, but i just want to -- >> i think what supervisor tang
8:23 pm
-- >> let me resolve this. i'm going to withdraw my motion. my motion was to actually vote today on the existing ordinance to have something that could be put on the books as quickly a possible because we cannot delay equal pay for women any more than it's delayed for decades. and that we could send one back to committee where we can do the clean up language, move forward to the full board. but if supervisor tang's motion to a date certain takes precedence, then i don't want to create any more process and that seems to be where the direction is going. i'll withdraw my motion. >> okay. so, at this time there is just one file. supervisor tang has made a motion to continue that one file to november the 25th. is there a second to that motion? seconded by supervisor cohen. colleagues, do we need a roll call or can we take that without objection? supervisor kim. >> i'm sorry. does that mean we can't maytion a motion to amend? >> because supervisor tang made
8:24 pm
a motion to continue to a date certain. that motion takes precedence over a motion to amend. unless there is objection. >> just a friendly, if we could do the motion to amend prior to the motion to continue. >> kay, that's where we are right now. >> through the chair, i would be okay with that, absolutely. >> okay, without objection we have two sets of amendments. the first offered by supervisor campos as he's described them. supervisor campos, could you describe your amendments again? >> thank you, mr. president. this is to address the issue of the privacy of some of the information and specifically is on -- sorry -- page -- >> page 5 line 24. >> page 5 line 24, the city will not disclose any information contained in the equal pay report that qualifies as a trade secret or proprietary information. >> so, supervisor campos has made that motion to amend. madam clerk, who was that seconded by? >> supervisor kim. >> second by supervisor kim. colleagues, can we take that
8:25 pm
motion without objection? without objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> and supervisor kim made a motion to amend. if you would like to restate that motion to amend. >> my motion to amend is to change seat 7 to be a person that works in a nonprofit organization that contracts with the city. , and you know, i'm sure the city attorney would make that a little cleaner. >> okay. and i believe that was seconded by supervisor tang. >> that's correct. >> and, colleagues, can we take that motion to amend without objection? without objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> and then now on the motion to continue this item to november the 25th, colleagues, can we do that without objection or do we need a roll call? without objection -- >> as amended, mr. president. >> i'm sorry? >> as amended. >> as amended. without objection this item as amended will be continued to november the 25th. [gavel] >> and with that, why don't we go to item 28. >> item 28 is an ordinance amending the police code to repeal the prohibition on entering or remaining within a 25-foot buffer zone of a reproductive health care facility; to prohibit
8:26 pm
individuals from following or harassing others within 25 feet of the entrance to such a facility; to prohibit impeding access to the door of such a facility; and to prohibit excessive noise through yelling or amplification of sound within 50 feet of such facility. >> colleagues, any discussion? supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i'm not going to repeat the comments that i have made before, but the bottom line is this, that we have a supreme court ruling that impacted the law that we passed for the purpose of protecting the right of women to access reproductive health. it's been three years since planned parenthood has opened, opened in my district, and almost immediately upon opening its doors the staff and patients, the back clinic have been harassed and intimidated by protesters.
8:27 pm
the freestanding clinic is in a very interesting geographic spot. it's in a relatively narrow sidewalk and every week as women enter the clinic to receive reproductive health services, they must pass by several protesters who scream thing like "don't kill your baby, abortion causes breast cancer." they are forced to walk by a barrage of posters aligning the streets. the 8-foot posters contain pictures of bloody fetuses he at different stages of gestation and phases like repent or burn. oftentimes really just music is playing on a radio and the protesters actually have video cameras facing the door as the women and the workers enter that clinic. in addition to the protesters, women often have to walk by counter protesters, usually neighbors or pedestrians who,
8:28 pm
with good intentions, sometimes get into arguments with the protesters, all of which makes it harder for these women to access this clinic. anyone would feel harassed and intimidated having to pass by this scene. and if you're a woman seeking sensitive health services who has made the difficult decision to obtain an abortion, this harassment could be actually detrimental to your health. last year we passed unanimously here at this board a 25-foot buffer zone ordinance to protect the women. unfortunately at the end of this year, the supreme court in the colin v. cokely invalidated a similar massachusetts buffer zone law that was substantially similar to the one in san francisco. for the last few months my office and i have been working with the city attorney's office, with the police department, with planned
8:29 pm
parenthood to amend this buffer zone law so that it is compliant with mccullen, but still accomplishes the twin objectives of allowing women to safely and securely access reproductive health, but at the same time protecting the first amendment rights of these protesters. i believe that our law today strikes through that balance. this legislation will continue to allow quiet consensual conversations between anti-abortion counselors and women seeking services without subjecting planned parenthood's patients and staff to scary and intimidating harassment and conflict. my legislation does the following. it prohibits anyone from following and harassing any person within 25 feet of a reproductive health care facility. it prohibits impeding access at the door of a reproductive health facility. it prohibits individuals from shouting or using amplified sound on any public street or
8:30 pm
sidewalk within 50 feet of the property line of a reproductive health facility. and if an individual violates any of these prohibitions after a written warning, a police officer may require that individual to disperse and remain 25 feet from the health facility for eight hours or until the close of business of that facility. again, i want to thank the city attorney's office. i want to thank especially deputy city attorney aaron burnstein who has done an amazing job in drafting this amended legislation. i especially want to thank the workers at planned parenthood and the women who have had to deal and put up with this harassment for so many years. as i have said before and i will continue to say, if we cannot protect a woman's right to choose in san francisct